I never said Russia and China AREN'T world leaders. I know they are world leaders, just not in terms of combat power. In terms of army and combat experience, the USA leads the boat. The reason Russia (and perhaps China as well) hold out against an intervention in Syria is because it's not their business. For some people in this topic that seems to be legitimate reasons to do nothing.
For any plan involving the UN, this is a legitimate reason to do nothing. This is why Russia and China are a problem.
Given that Iraq pretty much murdered the legitimacy of ad-hoc coalitions, there seems to be a Problem here.
Also: If you are admitting that they are
world leaders, then exactly what difference does it make whether they "claimed to be" or not? They are, and they exercise the rights and privileges this brings them. They don't need
to be combat leaders here - nobody's asking them to put boots on the ground. They can do the right thing, in this case, by doing literally nothing.
So what's their excuse, again?
In every war in the last decade, the US had a (leading) role, for one reason or another. You can't deny they have the experience. The reason why countries like the Netherlands and Germany are now holding off a complete 'yes we can' to Obama is because they have been tricked into a war before when Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt that once proven by the UN that it was indeed Assad who used the sarin gas, those countries will too join a coalition with the US.
I will bet you any amount of money you care to name, right now, that Germany will not commit any forces to any action in Syria or Syrian waters. You are factually wrong on this point, for reasons that have been explained repeatedly.
Putin has also said that if Assad really used the sarin gas, it wasn't smart of him to do so but he as well has his doubts as to whether it really was Assad or another party wanting to get the US or UN to be involved.
So a noncommittal wag of the finger. Is this supposed to get him brownie points?